I was hoping that I could indeed shut-up. But I have read nothing that really even tries to demonstrate or convince me that I am wrong. I am still waiting.....

Wolfgang et al - do you think that the routine deleting of entire threads and all their posts - to address a few posts judged to be 'offending' - is the best and fairest course of action to those Max has invited to contribute and who just happen to be unlucky to share this thread? And just because the volunteer in question "couldn't see spending much of my time sorting the wheat from the chaff?" [The full quote follows.] Do you think action should be taken to ensure that it does not happen again?

For nothing seems to have altered even a small amount. The evidence is (generally) ignored, the 'system' is still defended as perfect and those involved in it are defended as saintly individuals who could not possibly be doing anything any better and the fault is all mine and that of anyone who may question this. And the only important issue at stake here is seen to be me or my analogies. Disagreeing with me is one thing but I do ask that folk do think long and hard before they attempt defend every last aspect of the forum's censorship, based mainly on the fact that I am such an unpleasant individual that everything I say must be wrong. Posting to disagree with me will probably just keep the thread going, as I will probably reply.

Will the routine deletion of entire threads continue because volunteers 'can't be bothered' - only to delete what they judge to be the 'offending' posts or in future will deletions always be confined only to the 'offending' contributions?

I ask the perfectly valid question once again in the hope that in the light of experience (and in time) there may be an answer provided and one based on the reality and that the question will be debated here.

I also provide the evidence here. Others can then decide for themselves if the judgement passed and editing action on imposed 'GOOFING-OFF' – i.e. the complete deletion of many postings – is really showing the required care. Just as importantly to judge where in the Official Line about racist and personal attacks does it say that 'GOOFING-OFF' and not being profound is cause for judgement and imposed deletion?   

Subject: RE: favorouter mudcatters, my last post,
From: The Shambles
Date: 22-Jul-04 - 08:20 AM
Did not see the thread so I can't judge if it was more nasty or contained any more personal attacks than many other threads that do not get deleted. Two questions. 1. Did any poster write to complain or request that this thread be deleted?
2. As many of the posts do not sound as if they were 'nasty', would if not have been better to just delete the few offending posts - rather than all the contributions in the entire thread?
Post - Top - Help Forum Home

Subject: RE: favorouter mudcatters, my last post,
From:
Date: 22-Jul-04 - 10:14 AM
As many of the posts do not sound as if they were 'nasty', would if not have been better to just delete the few offending posts - rather than all the contributions in the entire thread?
I had been wondering that myself actually.
Post - Top - Help Forum Home

Subject: RE: favorouter mudcatters, my last post,
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22-Jul-04 - 02:11 PM
1. Yes, somebody wrote to complain.
2. If I can delete just one or two messages without affecting the flow of the entire thread, I do that. If I can't, I either leave the whole thread intact or delete it entirely, or close the thread. It depends on a number of factors, including what Max and Jeff and I think of the overall value of the thread. "Favorouter" was just a goofing-off thread, and nobody spent much time composing profound messages. I couldn't see spending much of my time sorting the wheat from the chaff.
It's a shame when people mess up the fun that other people are having, but that's what trolls do. We do our best to control the trolls without affecting the rest of the people. It isn't an easy task.
If you want a copy of the thread, send me an e-mail.
-Joe Offer-
joe@mudcat.org
Post - Top - Help Forum Home


The above posts are from the following thread on the HELP forum

http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=2629&messages=15

Note that the devil - as always in in the detail. The reply refers to: "It depends on a number of factors, including what Max and Jeff and I think of the overall value of the thread". This answer implies that this is a matter for consultation but then it is clear that what actually happened was that this volunteer did exactly what they wanted based only on their personal jugement: ""Favorouter" was just a goofing-off thread, and nobody spent much time composing profound messages. I couldn't see spending much of my time sorting the wheat from the chaff."

Is this evidence of a conspiracy, is this such a terrible crime, is the volunteer a bad person? No of course not and it may not be the most pressing issue that faces us all, BUT:

We would all agree that censorship is a sensitve issue. If you are expected to defend something: What you are defending MUST be that. If it is publicly stated that consultation takes place before certain actions are taken this MUST happen - every time. If is publicly stated that ONLY racist and personal attacks are deleted - then it must be limited to this - every time. If it is stated that 'cut and paste' contributions that don't fit on to Joe's screen will be deleted - then this MUST always be the case!

When it is demonstrated (even once) that what is defended as happening is proved NOT to be he case, is it not a good idea to openly ensure that this is corrected and changed and certainly that it does not continue to be defended as being the reality, until it is? It needs to be reviewed in the light of these case and preferably IN the light. The more open and less secret - the better. As has been pointed out, this is a (friendly) forum. It is not the FBI or even the tax office. Passing judgement on the worth of invited contributions and imposing editing action based on that judgement is a BIG DEAL. Should any volunteer (no matter how nice they are thought to be) not accept that, or their responsibilty to set the best example - should they be in this privileged position. And why of why would they wish to remain anonymous?

I think that judging and imposing editing action upon posters who are just unlucky to share in a thread that is deleted for the 'offences' of others is just about, if not more 'nasty' as the 'offending posts' and I think, far more damaging to our forum. We can be encouraged to ignore these 'offending post'. However, it is difficult to ignore the fact that your contribution has been judged and deleted against your wishes - for 'GOOFING-OFF'?

Enough judgements of our worth by volunteers who do not in turn feel they and their action should be judged by those they have volunteered to serve. Priviliged indeed. Max - as our creator and the site owner, is entitled to that sort of privilige - no one else.